Coated/Uncoated lenses

[Malcolm_J]

Hi, I have just bought a Zeiss Ikon 523/16 on "the Bay". I am not sure whether it has a coated lens or not. It's got a Novar f3.5 lens, if that helps. If not coated, what effect would that have in taking colour film, and is it possible to fit a filter to make up for lack of coating?

Advice much appreciated, and sorry it is rather a basic question.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Uncoated lenses, in my experience, imply rather bluish pictures in daylight and(rather more) browni/yellow pics under artificial light. I'd put an 81-series on for daylight pics.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gumby]

I have never noticed a color bias with uncoated lenses, but I might not be quite as discriminating as I should be. In general I've been happy with the results of my 1920 and 1940-era uncoated lenses with both b&w and color transparency materials. One thing I will add to the conversation - is the importance of using a lens hood with uncoated lens. This is what I notice makes a BIG difference.

 

[Finder]

Uncoated lenses have more flare and scattering and so less contrast. A filter cannot change this as the coatings help light tranmission through the lens surfaces. I have used uncoated lenses which modern color film. I have never noticed a color bias. Try it you may like it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

One thing I will add to the conversation - is the importance of using a lens hood with uncoated lens. This is what I notice makes a BIG difference.

Seconded. My observations were based mainly on not using a lens hood. The non-image-forming light from outside the image area is what I have found to cause colour casts.

Tranny only, of course. With neg, a LOT can be corrected automatically.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[rbiemer]

At least by 1954(according to their catalog) "all lenses are coated and colour corrected" so yours may have a coated lens. Either way, I think a hood is a good idea for these cameras.
Here's a link to a pdf of the '54 catalog:
http://66.49.230.119/pdf_files/zeiss_ikon_cameras-1954.pdf
The catalog is at an excelent site for manuals/catalogs/etc:
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/
Good shooting!
Rob

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

At least by 1954(according to their catalog) "all lenses are coated and colour corrected" so yours may have a coated lens. Either way, I think a hood is a good idea for these cameras.
Here's a link to a pdf of the '54 catalog:
http://66.49.230.119/pdf_files/zeiss_ikon_cameras-1954.pdf
The catalog is at an excelent site for manuals/catalogs/etc:
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/
Good shooting!
Rob

Zeiss was actually the first company to use optical coatings in 1935, first introduced for military purposes and used for them almost exclusively during WW2, even though technically Zeiss coated optics became available for commercial products already in 1940.

So, after the war all new production Zeiss camera and binocular lenses either from Jena or Oberkochen were all coated. The only Zeiss non-coated lenses from post-WW2 period were the ones assembled from old 1930's elements made before the declassification of coating technology in 1940, but their numbers were quite low. I believe some of the old production elements were also coated after the war, further decreasing the numbers of post-WW2 uncoated lenses. From about 1948 on all Carl Zeiss and Carl Zeiss Jena lenses should definitely be coated.

 

[Malcolm_J]

My camera arrived today. I must say that I am tremendously impressed with its simple, effective mechanical design and the general excellent quality of manufacture. Certo-6 has done a fine job of getting the camera up to fine fettle.

I have not taken any pictures with it as yet!

What especially impresses me is how light and small it is. It is actually compacter than an SLR as it does not have a long nose, and it is also lighter than most SLRs, digitals included. My Zenith 3m, with snub-nosed Industar lens, is nearly as neat, but not quite.

As with my venture into soviet cameras, I do think that there are some amazingly well-kept secrets out there. Fine by me. I have indulged myself in a voyage through vintage cameras that has cost me less than half of one middling quality dslr, and it's been far more fun.

What worries me is that I may not be able to resist further folder purchases!

Can anyone recommend a good place for developing medium format, ideally in Edinburgh, but I am not bothered by having to post.

 

[Malcolm_J]

With apprehension, I just got back my first set of prints. Nothing to worry about. Perfect, no light leaks and beautifully fine grained. It is like looking into a world set in glass crystal. No flaring problems either.

The one thing that miffs me is the price, at £15 for a set of 6x6" prints. I can get twice that many similar sized prints made up for a fiver in 35mm. Is it the low volume and large negatives that bumps the price up? Or was I ripped off?

Can anyone recommend a postal service based in the UK?

 

[Marc-A.]

The old uncoated Elmar's I've used were simply unusable with a light source in the photo. Windows in the background of indoor shots just flared out everything. But, I've never noticed a color bias one way or the other.

You might have a bad one, with haze or something (fungus?). I've shot several rolls at beach under bright sunshine without any problem. See below (Elmar 1939, uncoated).

I'm less enthusiast about it for colour pictures - but it may be my scanner or the cheap processing ... so I can't really say.